National  Industrial  Conference  Board 
Prize  Essays,  1919-1920 


THE  CLOSED  UNION  SHOP  VERSUS  THE  OPEN 

SHOP:  THEIR  SOCIAL  AND  ECONOMIC 

VALUE   COMPARED 

By  Ernest  F.  Lloyd 


A  SECOND  PRIZE  ESSAY 


SPECIAL  REPORT  NUMBER  11 
July,  1920 


331.88 


v^% 


nrc  2^ 


e  8f' 


-  *':    ♦• 


M 


■»      V 


National  Industrial  Conference  Board 

15   BEACON  STREET,  BOSTON.  MASS. 

BRANCH  OFFICE 
724  SOUTHERN  BUILDING,  WASHINGTON,  D.  C. 

THE  National  Industrial  Conference  Board  is  a  co-operative 
body  composed  of  representatives  of  national  and  state  in- 
dustrial associations,  and  closely  allied  engineering  societies  of  a 
national  character,  and  is  organized  to  provide  a  clearing  house 
of  information,  a  forum  for  constructive  discussion,  and  ma- 
chinery for  co-operative  action  on  matters  that  vitally  affect 
the  industrial  development  of  the  nation. 

Frederick  P.  Fish  Chairman 

Magnus  W.  Alexander  Managing  Director 


MEMBERSHIP 

American  Cotton  Manufacturers'  Association 

American  Hardware  Manufacturers'  Association 

American  Malleable  Castings  Association 

American  Paper  and  Pulp  Association 

Electrical  Manufacturers'  Club 

Institute  of  Makers  of  Explosives 

Manufacturing  Chemists'  Association  of  the  U.  S. 

National  Association  of  Cotton  Manufacturers 

National  Association  of  Finishers  of  Cotton  Fabrics 

National  Association  of  Manufacturers 

National  Association  of  Wool  Manufacturers 

National  Automobile  Chamber  of  Commerce 

National  Boot  and  Shoe  Manufacturers'  Association 

National  Electric  Light  Association 

National  Erectors'  Association 

National  Founders'  Association 

National  Implement  and  Vehicle  Association 

National  Industrial  Council 

National  Metal  Trades  Association 

Rubber  Association  of  America,  Inc. 

The  Railway  Car  Manufacturers'  Association 

The  Silk  Association  of  America 

United  Typothet^  of  America 

ASSOCIATE  MEMBERSHIP 

Associated  Industries  of  Massachusetts 
Associated  Industries  of  New  York  State,  Inc. 
Illinois  Manufacturers*  Association 
Manufacturers'  Association  of  Connecticut,  Inc. 


National  Industrial  Conference  Board 
Prize  Essays,  1919-1920 


THE  CLOSED  UNION  SHOP  VERSUS  THE  OPEN 

SHOP:   THEIR  SOCIAL  AND  ECONOMIC 

VALUE   COMPARED 


BY 


ERNEST  F.  LLOYD 


Special  Report  Number  ii 
July,  1920 


Copyright   1920 


National  Industrial  Conference  Board 

15     Beacon     Street 
Boston,  Mass. 


rru 
Lb 


Foreword 

TN  February,  1919,  the  National  Industrial  Conference 
Board,  in  an  effort  to  stimulate  sound  and  constructive 
thinking  on  labor  problems,  oifered  a  series  of  prizes 
for  the  best  monographs  on  any  one  of  eight  subjects, 
as  follows: 

1.  A  practicable  plan  for  representation  of  workers  in 
determining  conditions  of  work  and  for  prevention  of 
industrial  disputes. 

2.  The  major  causes  of  unemployment  and  how  to  minimize 
them. 

3.  How  can  efficiency  of  workers  be  so  increased  as  to  make 
high  wage  rates  economically  practicable? 

4.  Should  the  State  interfere  in  the  determination  of  wage 
rates  ? 

5.  Should  rates  of  wages  be  definitely  based  on  the  cost  of 

living? 

6.  How  can  present  systems  of  wage  payments  be  so  per- 
fected and  supplemented  as  to  be  most  conducive  to 
individual  efficiency  and  to  the  contentment  of  workers? 

7.  The  closed  union  shop  versus  the  open  shop:  their 
social  and  economic  value  compared. 

8.  Should  trade  unions  and  employers'  associations  be 
made  legally  responsible? 

The  contest  v^^as  open  without  restriction  to  all  persons 
except  members  of  the  staff  of  the  National  Industrial 
Conference  Board,  or  those  identified  with  it.  In  all, 
553  essays  had  been  submitted  when  the  contest  closed. 
The  widespread  interest  in  the  contest  is  further  indicated 
O  by  the  fact  that  of  the  48  States  in  the  United  States  all 
^    but   four   were   represented   by    contestants.      Nineteen 

essays  were  submitted  from  outside  the  United  States: 

fifteen  came  from  Canada,  two  from  England,  one  from 
Haiti,  and  one  from  the  Virgin  Islands. 


vD 


oo 


The  Committee  of  Award  selected  by  the  Conference 
Board  was  composed  of 

Frederick  P.  Fish,  of  Fish,  Richardson  &  Neave,  and 
Chairman  of  the  National  Industrial  Conference  Board, 
Boston,  Mass., 

Jacob  Gould  Schurman,  President  of  Cornell  University, 
Ithaca,  N.  Y., 

Henry  R.  Towne,  Chairman  Yale  &  Towne  Manufacturing 
Co.,  New  York  City. 

A  second  prize  was  awarded  to  Ernest  F.  Lloyd,  of  Ann 
Arbor,  Michigan,  for  his  essay  on  "The  Closed  Union 
Shop  versus  the  Open  Shop:  Their  Social  and  Economic 
Value  Compared." 

The  publication  rights  of  this  prize  essay  are  vested 
in  this  Board,  and  the  Board  publishes  it  because  of  its 
merit.  It  is  a  contribution  on  an  important  question 
worthy  of  careful  consideration.  In  publishing  this 
report,  however,  the  Board  assumes  no  responsibility  or 
sponsorship  for  the  views  expressed  or  for  the  conclusions 
reached,  nor  does  it  undertake  to  criticize  or  commend  the 
arguments  contained  in  the  essay.  All  such  responsibility 
rests  with  the  author. 


The  Closed  Union  Shop  versus  the  Open 

Shop:  Their  Social  and  Economic 

Value  Compared 

Introductory 

The  economic  relationship  of  employee  and  employer 
has  probably  existed  in  every  civilized  society.  Whether 
the  employee  has  been  slave,  serf,  or  freeman,  we  may 
well  believe  his  relation  to  his  employer  has  ever  been 
charged  with  possibilities  of  conflict.  The  closed  union 
shop  and  the  open  shop  present  contemporary  phases  of 
this  age-old  relation.  They  are  important  in  that  they 
represent  social  movements  which  give  expression  to  great 
theories  of  society.  They  are  equally  of  value  because 
they  contain  certain  explanations  of  human  nature.  And 
they  are  of  especial  present  interest  because  their  par- 
ticular forms  have  arisen  under  the  industrial  organiza- 
tion of  society,  and  because  the  character  and  method  of 
the  conflicts  they  have  engendered  point  to  a  revolu- 
tionary change  in  the  conditions  that  have  so  long  con- 
trolled the  workers'  status. 

I  shall  endeavor  to  discuss  the  subject  under  topical 
heads  dealing  with  definitions  of  the  closed  union  shop  and 
the  open  shop,  with  the  bases  upon  which  they  respectively 
rest,  with  their  organizations  and  working  effects,  and 
with  their  social  and  economic  values.  Finally,  I  shall 
examine  their  validities  as  movements  in  the  drama  of  our 
social  development.  In  using  such  general  divisions,  I 
recognize  their  frequently  close  relationship  and  even 
interpenetration.  They  must  not,  therefore,  be  assumed 
as  positive  demarcations. 

It  should  also  be  said  that  the  treatment  of  the  Subject 
has  been  deliberately  confined  to  principles.  The  closed 
and  open  shops,  in  the  extreme  forms  in  which  I  picture 
them,  rarely  if  ever  appear  in  actual  practice.  Neverthe- 
less the  tendency  toward  the  extremes  is  held  to  be 
inherent.  Therefore  it  is  believed  that  it  will  conduce  to 
clarity  if  the  extremes  are  assumed  while  remembering 

1 


that  the  actual  situation  is  always  in  total  a  compromise. 
Yet,  even  so,  as  will  no  doubt  be  recognized,  aspects  of 
the  extremes  do  crop  up  in  real  life.  Unless,  then,  we  are 
prepared  to  set  up  a  naked  abstraction  of  principles,  there 
will  be  constantly  present  to  obscure  our  analysis  what 
may  be  termed  the  clothing  of  everyday  working  practice. 
The  method  is  but  the  ordinary  one  in  all  scientific  inquiry. 
This  preliminary  caution  to  the  reader  is  given  so  much 
emphasis  because  both  the  employer  and  the  employee 
know  full  well  that  rarely  if  ever  are  their  ultimate  de- 
mands attained.  Always,  in  every  arrangement,  there  is 
a  measure  of  compromise.  Even  in  the  rare  instances 
where  one  side  or  the  other  appears  to  impose  its  full  will 
on  the  other,  there  is  no  permanence  in  the  relations,  or 
the  very  demands  or  conditions  have  been  perhaps  un- 
consciously modified  by  the  situation.  Expediency  is 
ever  present  and  at  work  as  a  practical  force,  though  it 
may  in  no  degree  abridge  the  opposing  principles.  The 
general  text  of  the  inquiry,  therefore,  frequently  assumes, 
or  but  briefly  refers  to,  much  that  would  otherwise  have 
to  be  gone  into  at  length. 

For  these  reasons  I  hope  the  reader  will  pardon  the 
omission  of  current  facts  and  data  and  remember,  whether 
a  believer  in  the  closed  or  the  open  shop,  that  the  treat- 
ment is  impersonal  throughout. 


The  Closed  Union  Shop 

The  closed  union  shop  arises  out  of  the  labor  movement. 
I  take  it  as  proper,  therefore,  first  to  define  a  labor  union 
as  the  term  has  been  commonly  accepted.  Such  a  labor 
union  is  a  non-legal  organization  of  occupational  in- 
dustrial workers  associated  for  united  action  under  chosen 
leaders.  Membership  in  the  union  is  accorded  by  vote. 
The  union  is  affiliated  with  other  similar  organizations  to 
form  state  and  national  bodies.  Usually  the  members 
individually  find  their  own  employment.  Hence,  a  union 
is  a  voluntary  and  selective  society  of  trade  workers,  the 
members  of  which  may  be  employed  in  their  trade  by  a 
number  of  employers,  but  the  practical  control  of  whose 
actions,  by  reason  of  their  group  affiliations,  does  not  reside 
wholly  within  themselves.  Equally,  the  control  of  the 
actions  of  any  single  group  of  such  workers,  employed  by 
any  one  employer,  does  not  reside  within  such  group.    A 

2 


1^ 


labor  union,  then,  is  a  selective  organization  of  trade 
workers  whose  relations  to  their  employer  or  to  their 
employment  is  subject  to  extra  or  ultra-group  control. 
By  reason  of  the  non-legal  quality  of  the  union  organiza- 
tion, I  shall  hereafter  term  this  extra-legal  control.  The 
most  notable  body  of  this  type  of  labor  organization  in 
the  United  States  is  the  American  Federation  of  Labor. 

This  organization  represents  the  dominant  type  in 
private  industry.  The  railroad  services  have  evolved 
different  forms,  due  to  the  particular  features  of  the 
services  engaged  in,  though  the  distinctions  are  rather 
in  structure  than  in  any  diiferences  of  principles. 

The  "closed  union  shop"  is  one  in  which  the  union 
principle  is  extended  to  compass  a  monopoly.  It  is  a 
shop  in  which  all  the  workers  in  a  given  trade  occupation 
must  be  members  in  good  standing  of  a  union  of  that 
trade,  to  which  condition  the  shop  assents  and  agrees. 
It  will  be  seen,  then,  that  the  closed  union  shop  rests  upon 
the  principle  of  compulsion.  The  complement  of  com- 
pulsion is  exclusion.  That  is  to  say,  in  such  a  shop  a 
worker  refusing  or  refused  membership  in  the  union  of 
his  trade  must  by  that  fact  be  refused  employment  or 
be  discharged  by  an  employer.  A  power  to  thus  exclude 
is  in  industry  a  power  to  unreasonably  restrain  trade. 
Hence  it  is  conceded  to  be  contrary  to  public  policy  and 
agreements  to  effect  it  are  legally  non-enforceable.  It  is, 
then,  the  illegal  feature  of  agreement  in  monopoly  which 
"closes"  a  union  shop. 

This  definition,  however,  may  be  made  somewhat 
more  complete  by  reference  to  some  of  the  modifications 
of  the  formally  closed  shop.  The  circumstance  that  all 
the  workers  in  a  unionized  trade  in  a  shop  are  in  point  of 
fact  members  of  the  union  does  not  of  itself  "close"  the 
shop.  Nor  is  it  closed  if  the  employer  engage  only  union 
workers,  through  fear  of  trouble  if  he  should  act  otherwise. 
He  is  still  constructively  free  to  engage  whom  he  pleases 
and  to  reject  for  such  reason  as  he  pleases.  Yet  a  threat 
to  strike  or  a  notice  by  the  union  of  intention  to  cease 
work  by  its  members  or  a  condition  known  to  involve 
trouble,  if  a  non-union  worker  be  employed,  and  the 
employer's  tacit  acceptance  of  such  practical  exclusion, 
might  be  looked  upon  as  a  de  facto  agreement  and  thereby 
as  constituting  a  closed  shop.  But,  in  general,  a  closed 
shop  is  one  in  which  the  agreement  to  close   is   formal. 

3 


Actually,  it  is  always  one  in  which  a  non-union  worker 
cannot  secure  employment. 

"Recognition"  is  not  infrequently  confounded  with 
"closed  shop,"  but  is  of  much  less  inclusiveness.  Really 
recognition  of  the  union  occurs  whenever  for  any  reason 
an  employer  or  any  group  of  employers  meet  represen- 
tatives of  a  union.  In  practice,  however,  the  term  serves 
to  express  any  agreement  with  a  union  as  such.  It  is  thus 
susceptible  to  many  shades  of  meaning  and  degrees  of 
interpretation.  But  the  union  is  actually  recognized,  in 
point  of  fact,  when  the  extra-legal  authority  of  its  control 
in  any  way  determines  the  conduct  of  the  employer. 

The  shop  is  "closed"  only  when  this  recognition  extends 
to  and  includes  an  agreement  by  the  employer  to  employ 
only  members  of  the  recognized  union  in  the  prosecution 
of  the  unionized  trade. 

The  Open  Shop 

An  open  shop  is  one  in  which  the  employer  makes  no 
distinction  between  union  and  non-union  workmen,  and 
in  which  he  makes  no  exclusive  agreements  with  the  union. 
The  most  advanced  type  of  open  shop  refuses  to  make 
any  formal  or  written  agreements  of  any  sort  with  the 
union.  It  contents  itself  with  simply  putting  into  effect 
the  acceptable  result  of  a  negotiation.  The  test  of  the 
worker  rests  on  his  performance  of  his  duty,  his  desira- 
bility otherwise,  and  his  amicable  relations  with  his  fel- 
lows. The  employer  is  free  to  discharge  him  for  any  or 
no  given  reason  and  he  is  equally  free  to  quit.  An  open 
shop  may  then  happen  to  have  in  its  employ  all  union 
workers,  or  no  union  workers,  or  both  union  and  non- 
union workers.  It  is  not,  therefore,  precisely  the  reverse 
of  the  closed  union  shop. 

The  true  open  shop  deals  with  its  employees  as  indi- 
viduals, refraining  from  actual  or  tacit  interference  with 
their  personal  affairs  and  regarding  their  affiliation  with 
or  non-relation  to  the  union  as  a  personal  affair.  The 
open  shop  does  not,  therefore,  preclude  the  making  of 
arrangements  with  its  workers  as  a  group.  Nor  does  it 
preclude  conference  with  union  representatives,  nor  the 
putting  into  effect  of  the  results  of  such  conferences. 
But  it  does  distinctly  maintain  the  right  to  employ  any 
person  regardless  of  his  personal  affiliations,  and  that  any 
understanding  or  agreement  shall  apply  equally  to  all  its 

4 


workers  affected.  And  commonly  it  will  not  permit  union 
propaganda  in  working  hours;  nor,  perhaps  naturally,  is 
it  favorable  to  it  at  any  time.  And  it  always  asserts  the 
right  of  the  owner  to  conduct  the  shop  as  he  may  see  fit. 

We  may,  perhaps,  sum  up  the  open  shop  by  saying  that 
in  it  the  worker  deals  with  the  employer  as  one  free 
individual  with  another,  or  as  a  free  autonomous  group 
of  workers  with  a  free  employer.       "^  4'^>rp  a 

As  in  the  case  of  the  closed  shop,  the  definition  might 
not  be  complete  with  only  the  affirmations.  The  open 
shop  is  not  a  non-union  shop,  in  that  it  not  only  does  not 
refuse  employment  to  union  workers  but  also  employs  them 
freely.  Neither  does  it  refuse  to  recognize  the  union,  for 
the  very  quality  of  its  openness  constitutes  such  recogni- 
tion in  fact.  Yet,  in  the  absence  of  the  potential  effects  of 
unionization  a  shop  would  not  be  "open"  in  the  under- 
stood sense.  It  may,  therefore,  as  has  been  said,  be  a 
shop  employing  in  fact  all  union  workers,  or  no  union 
workers,  or  both  union  and  non-union.  It  may  deal  with 
union  officials,  or  with  committees  of  its  union  employees, 
or  with  mixed  committees,  or  it  may  refuse  to  deal  with 
any  committees,  to  listen  to  any  alleged  grievances,  or  to 
make  any  adjustments.  Again,  it  may  refuse  to  do  any 
of  these  things  individually,  but  may  do  any  or  all  through 
its  representatives  in  an  association  of  employers,  or, 
through  such  association,  may  refuse  to  do  any  or  all  of 
them.  But  whatever  may  be  the  detail  of  its  practice,  it 
never  abridges  the  principle  that  the  employer  and  the 
worker  have  the  right  to  deal  with  each  other  as  free 
individuals  acting  each  of  his  own  free  will,  and  that  the 
shop  is  the  private  property  of  the  owner.  So  it  concedes 
to  the  worker  the  full  right  to  organize,  and  asserts  its 
own  freedom  of  action  in  respect  thereto  and  in  respect  to 
its  conduct  of  the  enterprise. 

The  Basis  of  the  Closed  Union  Shop 

The  closed  union  shop  has  a  very  wide  and  old  founda- 
tion. No  single  theory  underlies  it.  Its  motivation  pro- 
ceeds from  the  varying  economic  and  social  impulses  of 
human  nature  as  affected  by  differences  of  environment. 
In  the  economic  sense,  as  before  intimated,  it  is  distinctly 
monopolistic.  If  a  group  can  cause  the  exclusion  of 
others,  or  can  restrict  them  or  its  own  members  in  the 
exercise  of  their  trade  functions,  it  thereby  makes  it  pos- 


><^ 


sible  to  Increase  its  own  demands  and  to  compel  a  higher 
remuneration  for  the  services  of  its  members/^  It  can 
create,  in  other  words,  an  artificial  scarcity.  In  this 
pecuniary  respect  the  closed  union  shop  is  analogous  to 
trade  and  professional  agreements  among  all  classes. 
There  is  little  economic  difference  between  a  closed  union 
group  of  workers,  a  pool  among  manufacturers,  an 
association  of  jobbers,  or  a  professional  society  which 
promotes  certification  and  establishes  fees.  Each  acts, 
in  the  economic  sense,  from  a  motive  of  greater  profit,  or 
of  greater  security  of  revenue,  for  its  members.  Such 
associations  are  of  course  seldom  exclusively  economic, 
but  in  this  sense  the  analogy  is  very  close.  The  eff"ects  of 
this  restriction  I  shall  advert  to  later. 

^^      In  a  social  sense,  the  closed  union  shop  embodies  the 
/y^       universal   spirit  of  caste.     Theoretically,   the  organized 
J  workers  of  a  trade  are  socially  superior  to  the  unorganized, 

regarding  themselves  in  the  same  light  as  members  of  a 
church  congregation  regard  those  who  are  non-members. 
Theoretically,  again,  union  membership  implies  trade 
skill,  acquired  formerly  through  the  education  of  appren- 
ticeship. In  modern  industry  this  phase  has  been  greatly 
weakened,  but  none  the  less  the  tradition  survives.  The 
class  idea  is  present  in  a  consciousness  of  the  solidifying 
power  residing  in  organization.  The  idea  that  advantages 
accrue  to  the  individual  through  class  action  presents  the 
corollary  that  all  members  of  the  class  should  contribute 
to  the  effort.  In  a  sense  this  is  the  spirit  underlying 
national  conscription,  —  the  spirit  of  the  tribe  or  nation. 

In  the  historic  sense  the  closed  union  shop  is  a  reaction 
against  the  control  of  the  means  of  production  by  the  em- 
ployer. It  is  not,  as  often  thought,  a  reaction  against 
capitalism.  It  is  therefore  not  socialistic,  for  it  accepts 
the  economic  order  of  the  private  ownership  and  direction 
of  property.  But  it  is  an  attempt  to  encroach  upon  the 
profits  and  control  of  industry  through  the  power  to 
bargain  with  the  owners  of  industrial  capital. 

The  different  degrees  of  importance  accorded  to  these 
motives  by  various  groups  are  as  many  as  the  leaders  and 
the  groups  that  apply  them. 

The  Basis  of  the  Open  Shop 

Underlying  the  attitude  and  true  functioning  of  the  open 
shop,  there  is  constantly  present  the  idea  of  responsible 

6 


Individual  action,  springing  untrammeled  from  each 
side.  It  is  the  idea  of  the  free  contractual  relation,  the 
making  of  agreement  by  the  meeting  of  free  minds,  acting 
without  other  compulsion  than  a  consideration  of  their 
respective  best  personal  interests.  The  true  open  shop 
accords  every  employee  entire  liberty  of  action  in  all  his 
affairs.  It  refuses  to  discriminate  against  him  by  reason 
of  any  religious,  political,  social,  or  economic  beliefs  or 
affiliations.  It  asks  only  that  he  shall  observe  his  con- 
tracts or  other  agreements  and  it  holds  him  free  to  accept 
or  reject  any  terms  or  conditions  of  his  employment  or 
any  rate  of  wages  or  method  of  compensation.  By  in- 
ference it  resists  any  outside  pressure  on  him  in  any  of 
these  matters.  That  is  to  say,  it  refuses  to  allow  itself  to 
be  influenced  in  its  dealings  with  each  of  its  employees  by 
any  influences  save  those  which  proceed  from  the  em- 
ployee himself.  The  open  shop  perfectly  expresses  the 
theory  of  individual  freedom  —  the  right  of  every  person 
to  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness. 

It  rests,  therefore,  upon  the  political  ideal  of  English 
institutions  as  expressed  in  their  historical  development 
and  the  teachings  of  our  classical  political  economy. 

The  Organization  and  Effects  of  the  Closed  Union  Shop 

We  have  seen  that  labor  unions  consist  of  trade  workers 
employed  usually  by  more  than  one  employer,  and  that 
in  consequence  of  this  fact  the  union  theory  involves  sub- 
mission by  the  employees  of  any  one  employer  to  the 
control  of  a  power  whose  source  in  greater  part  resides 
outside  their  own  group.  We  have  seen,  then,  inferen- 
tially,  that  an  employer  cannot  deal  with  his  own  group 
but  must  deal  with  union  leaders  who  only  in  part  repre- 
sent the  group.  This  fact  constitutes  an  irresponsible 
leadership,  that  is  to  say,  a  leadership  that  is  not  de- 
pendent upon  the  group  for  which  it  acts  and  which  it 
binds  by  its  acts.  Hence,  neither  the  employer  nor  his 
employees  are  able  to  hold  the  union  official  responsible 
for  his  acts.  This  fact  constitutes  the  extra-legal  quality 
previously  referred  to.  And  it  constitutes  perhaps  the 
most  serious  criticism  of  the  union  organization. 

It  may  be  also  regarded  as  axiomatic  that  all  groups  are 
led  by  minorities.  This  is  particularly  true  of  groups 
whose  action  is  taken  in  meetings  and  by  debate.  In 
general,  leaders  of  such  groups  are  persons  possessed  of 

7 


personal  assurance,  ready  speech,  and  aggressive  dis- 
position. Such  persons,  in  the  main,  incline  to  exaggera- 
tion. Groups  among  all  classes  of  people  present  these 
characteristics,  but  they  are  especially  marked  in  labor 
union  organization.  Moreover,  the  less  educated  a  group, 
the  more  immediate  must  be  the  results  of  its  decisions  in 
order  that  the  action  may  be  understood  and  valued. 
Hence,  the  ordinary  workman,  not  being  well  informed 
on  economic  principles,  inclines  to  "direct  action,"  and 
decides  his  course  by  viva  voce  vote.  This  method  is, 
therefore,  well  established  in  union  practice  and  em- 
phasizes the  minority  control.  The  combined  result  from 
these  various  factors  is,  in  practice,  a  radical  and  aggres- 
sive union  leadership.  It  is  not  necessary  to  assume  that 
such  leadership  is  corrupt,  nor  is  it  fair  to  do  so.  Corrupt 
leadership  does  beyond  doubt  exist,  yet  it  should  not  be 
forgotten  that  there  is  little  to  choose  between  the  sale 
and  the  purchase  of  principle. 

It  is  further  a  fact  in  human  psychology  that  irrespon- 
sible power  tends  always  to  become  arbitrary  in  its 
exercise.  In  labor  leadership  this  irresponsibility  is  both 
moral  and  financial  —  moral  in  the  sense  that  there  is  a 
wide  latitude  for  meretricious  acts  which  society  cannot 
prevent  or  punish,  and  financial  in  that  the  official  act 
does  not  carry  a  personal  financial  risk,  even  granting  that 
personal  means  ordinarily  exist.  Hence,  we  observe  that 
in  the  closed  union  shop  the  policy  also  of  the  shop  itself  is 
substantially  determined  by  a  third  party  —  one  who 
may  be  morally  and  financially  irresponsible  and  who 
does  not  derive  his  support  from  the  operations  of  the 
shop. 

The  tendency  of  irresponsible  power  is  always  to 
establish  and  rely  upon  programs,  that  is,  upon  the 
minutiae  of  rules  and  regulations.  The  reason  for  this  is 
obvious.  Programs  affect  the  individual  in  a  specific 
manner.  He  is  of  small  weight  in  any  group.  To  control 
the  individuals  of  a  group,  and  thereby  the  group  itself 
by  means  of  specific  enactments,  is  much  simpler  than  to 
control  the  group  as  a  whole  through  general  principles. 
Thus  it  is  possible  to  discipline  a  particular  individual  or 
group  for  the  technical  violation  of  a  specific  regulation, 
where  it  would  not  be  possible  to  do  so  under  the  general 
terms  of  a  principle.  In  this  manner  an  organization  can 
be  held  together  and  its  action  unified.     This  unity  of 


action,  or  solidarity,  of  the  closed  union  shop  is  essential 
to  its  successful  functioning. 

These  rules,  moreover,  are  not  arrived  at  with  any 
regard  to  the  interests,  proper  or  otherwise,  of  the  em- 
ployer, nor  with  reference  to  the  particular  relations  or 
conditions  of  any  given  employer  and  his  own  group  of 
employees.  Their  particular  function  is  to  control  the 
worker  in  the  conceived  interest  of  the  union.  The 
penalties  for  infractions  are  severe  fines  or  expulsion. 

The  power  universally  recognized  as  residing  in 
monopoly  and  the  condition  of  irresponsibility  which  we 
have  seen  pertains  in  labor  organizations,  combine  to  cause 
a  constant  effort  by  union  leaders  to  "close"  the  shops 
under  their  influence.  The  extent  to  which  this  effort  is 
successful  is  the  extent  to  which  the  union  is  "recognized, " 
and  measures  the  degree  to  which  an  extra-legal  or 
irresponsible  power  is  introduced  into  the  management 
of  the  shop.  We  are  not  here  concerned  with  the  desira- 
bility or  undesirability  of  any  practice  or  conduct  which 
may  be  sought  or  agreed  upon,  but  only  with  the  fact  of 
its  irresponsible  source. 

The  organization  of  the  individual  union,  or  "local," 
as  thus  described,  is  but  the  beginning  of  a  natural 
sequence  that  has  been  indicated.  The  locals  of  various 
trades  tend  to  form  more  or  less  closely  knit  local  bodies 
or  councils.  These  in  turn  tend  to  organize  into  district 
or  state  bodies,  and  these  again  to  join  into  a  national 
body.  In  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  type  the 
authority  of  the  successive  organizations  is  not  supreme, 
but  their  influence  is  exceedingly  powerful.  Possessing 
advisory  functions  and  endowed  with  powers  of  expulsion, 
the  officers  of  the  larger  groupings  possess  all  the  extra- 
legal qualifications  of  the  officers  of  the  locals  with  the 
additional  advantages  of  prestige  and  distance. 

Hence,  the  irresponsibility  of  the  union  organization 
does  not  stop  with  the  representatives  of  the  local  union 
of  the  trade  to  which  the  immediate  workers  belong. 
Each  such  step  in  removal  thus  tends  to  reduce  the 
responsibility,  lessen  the  possibility  of  enforcement  of 
agreements,  and  increase  the  opportunities  for  the  exer- 
cise of  arbitrary  authority  and  power.  Yet,  again,  such 
removals  introduce  laxness  of  discipline,  mutual  jealousies 
among  leaders  of  complementary  groups,  involving  juris- 
dictional  conflicts    and    a   vast   confusion,    ill   will,    and 


opportunity  for  factional  contests,  all  affecting  morale, 
production,  and  continuity  of  operation.  In  the  railway 
types  of  unions  the  different  character  of  the  employments, 
the  more  direct  control  by  the  national  officers,  and  the 
larger  public  effects  of  their  actions,  subject  them  to 
greater  public  scrutiny  and  correspondingly  modifies 
their  functioning.  Yet,  this  very  concentration  of  power 
carries  with  it  the  possible  evil  of  greater  public  conse- 
sequences,  as  the  history  of  the  Adamson  Law  shows. 

We  may  now  more  particularly  examine  the  effects  of 
the  closed  union  shop.  We  shall  find  it  reacting  against 
the  employer,  the  worker,  and  the  public. 

As  against  the  employer,  it  practically  limits  his  per- 
sonal selection  of  employees  to  a  choice  of  union  workers. 
These  may  or  may  not  be  in  his  opinion  suitable  for  the 
work  in  hand,  or  they  may  be  otherwise  undesirable. 
Equally,  the  disciplinary  power  of  the  employer  is  cur- 
tailed or  abrogated  and  his  methods  of  compensation 
regulated.  These  limitations  may  so  increase  the  cost  of 
production  and  the  hazards  of  operation  that  the  em- 
ployer may  be  subjected  to  unsustainable  financial  loss. 
He  must  therefore  consciously  assume  unknown  risks 
and  as  well  protect  himself,  in  so  far  as  that  may  be 
possible,  by  so-called  "strike"  clauses  in  his  contracts, 
the  effects  of  which  on  the  employer  himself  are  to  Intro- 
duce into  his  business  affairs  an  element  of  speculation 
and  to  reduce  his  feeling  of  responsibility  for  the  prompt 
performance  of  his  agreements.  These  elements  react 
through  the  community  at  large  as  an  insecurity  in  con- 
tractual relations.  In  short,  there  is  promoted  in  business 
a  general  lowering  of  tone  in  respect  to  the  moral  obliga- 
tions of  engagements. 

The  irresponsible,  detached,  and  removed  character  of 
union  control  inevitably  and  under  practically  all  cir- 
cumstances excites  a  feeling  of  antagonism  and  resent- 
ment. If  the  source  of  control  were  immediate,  that  is, 
if  It  were  lodged  In  the  group  of  workers  with  whom  the 
employer  deals,  so  that  it  might  be  possible  to  show  the 
consequences  of  an  action  to  Its  members,  to  reason  with 
them,  or  even  to  share  with  them  a  loss  which  It  had  been 
predicted  would  ensue,  the  employer  might  feel  that  the 
loss  would  have  at  least  an  educational  effect  and  that 
possibly  with  more  effort  on  his  part  a  repetition  might 
be  avoided.     But  in  dealing  with  closed  shop  union  con- 

10 


trol  he  has  neither  opportunity  nor  prospect.  He  may 
even  know  that,  so  far  as  the  members  of  his  own  group 
are  concerned,  they  agree  with  him  in  large  measure,  yet 
that  their  union  solidarity,  or  considerations  of  personal 
or  family  security  or  comfort,  cause  them  to  subordinate 
their  economic  interests. 

The  employer  is  aware,  also,  that  the  irresponsibility 
reacts  through  him  to  his  customers  and  thereby  against 
the  public  interest  at  large.  On  this  ccore  he  objects  to 
political  subservience  to  union  demands.  This  not  in- 
frequently has  the  effect  of  placing  the  employing  interests 
in  opposition  to  measures  which  on  their  merits  would  be 
favored.  As  a  consequence,  progressive  measures  in 
factory  administration  largely  find  expression  in  various 
forms  of  so-called  "welfare"  work,  thus  insuring  control 
by  the  group  concerned. 

Further,  the  employer  has  serious  cause  for  objection  to 
the  many  restrictions  and  exasperating  annoyances  in- 
separably connected  with  union  control.  As  we  have 
seen,  this  control  can  be  more  effectively  exercised  through 
specific  programs  than  through  general  principles.  With 
the  avowed  principles  of  unionism,  few  intelligent  em- 
ployers find  fault.  With  the  programs,  or  regulations, 
nominally  based  on  these  principles,  the  most  subservient 
of  employers  can  only  be  in  constant  conflict.  The  closed 
shop  regulations  respecting  employment,  discharge,  sus- 
pension, and  reinstatement;  the  union  rules  relating  to 
actions  in  violation  of  the  employer's  shop  rules;  to  limi- 
tations of  output;  to  necessary  overtime;  to  minute 
trade  restrictions  and  jurisdictional  disputes;  to  piece 
and  premium  work  and  to  payment  for  increased  pro- 
duction; and  to  authority  of  union  officials  in  the  shop, 
or  over  the  workers,  all  have  a  serious  disturbing  influence 
on  the  morale  of  any  force  subjected  to  their  influence  or 
authority. 

Lastly,  perhaps,  the  closed  union  shop  promotes  a 
sAy  spirit  of  unfair  competition  among  employers.  An  em- 
/\  ployer  who  voluntarily  agrees  to  the  "closing"  of  his 
shop  cannot  but  know  that  he  is  agreeing  to  an  illegal 
practice  but  one  to  which  no  money  penalty  ordinarily 
attaches.  Such  agreements  are  not  undertaken  unless  for 
an  unfair  advantage  against  competitors,  of  a  character 
which  partakes  of  many  of  the  qualities  of  conspiracy. 
The  "Union  Label"  affords  scope  for  much  analysis.     In 

11 


any  event,  the  agreement  is  looked  upon  as  a  surrender  of 
principle  for  which  there  can  be  no  redress  and  with  which 
there  can  be  no  compromise. 

As  against  the  worker,  the  effects  of  the  closed  shop  are 
to  supplant  his  personal  judgment  and  freedom  of  action 
with  a  conformity  to  the  union  program,  and  in  large 
measure  to  induce  a  subservience  to  the  personnel  of  the 
leadership.  On  some  natures  these  considerations  sit 
lightly,  but  the  worker  of  independent  spirit  chafes  under 
the  many  restraints.  As  previously  said,  unionism  has  a 
social,  economic,  and  historical  basis.  No  clear-cut  line 
of  demarcation  exists  between  these  bases. 

There  still  survives,  however,  the  Lump  of  Labor 
theory,  the  idea  that  there  is  but  a  certain  quantity  of 
work  to  be  performed,  therefore  a  too  fast  performance  of 
it  will  result  in  unemployment.  The  fast  worker  is  there- 
fore a  menace  to  his  group.  The  social  aspect  of  this 
doctrine  is  that  the  higher  pay  accruing  to  the  fast  worker 
is  unsocial  in  two  forms — first,  a  personal  selfishness,  and, 
second,  a  harm  to  the  less  expert  members  of  the  group. 
Hence  unionism  frowns  upon  all  measures  calculated  to 
reward  the  fast  worker  in  proportion  to  his  work.  The 
closed  union  in  a  shop  can  enforce  these  objections.  The 
incentive  to  personal  excellence  is  thereby  largely  removed 
and  a  dead  level  of  uniformity  established  which  neces- 
sarily tends  to  be  within  the  capacity  of  the  poorer 
workers. 

A  further  and  important  result  of  this  theory  as  it  works 
out  in  practice  is  to  place  the  worker  in  antagonism  to  his 
employment  as  such.  That  is  to  say,  to  engender  a  dis- 
regard for  the  economic  necessity  of  giving  a  full  equiva- 
lent in  work  for  the  wages  he  receives.  Workmen  who  are 
inclined  to  do  as  little  as  possible  for  their  wages  may  more 
easily  shirk  under  the  closed  shop  by  reason  of  the  degree 
of  protection  afforded  by  the  system  of  union  control. 
This  is  one  of  the  actual  efi'ects  of  the  union  motto,  "A 
fair  day's  pay  for  a  fair  day's  work." 

In  a  measure,  the  same  reasoning  opposes  the  introduc 
tion  of  labor-saving  machinery.  To  the  extent  to  which 
it  is  able  to  make  good  its  objections  to  both  fast  work 
and  automatic  machinery,  the  closed  union  shop  stands 
in  the  way  of  lessening  the  labor  required  for  human 
subsistence  or  restricts  the  commodities  which  society 
may  enjoy,  through,    in    efi"ect,  expending   an    unneces- 

12 


sary  time  on  their  production.  The  wide  introduction 
of  automatic  machinery  has,  however,  rendered  active 
opposition  futile  and  it  has  practically  ceased,  at  least  as 
an  open  question.  Historically  the  resistance  has  always 
existed. 

I  have  previously  said  that  if  a  group  can  exclude  or 
restrict  others  from  the  exercise  of  any  of  their  functions 
it  may  thereby  create  an  artificial  scarcity  to  its  own 
advantage.  In  so  far,  however,  as  a  labor  union  fails  to 
control  the  entire  labor  market  within  its  field,  it  has 
the  economic  effect  of  a  wage  advantage  against  unor- 
ganized labor  through  the  fact  that  it  first  affects  and 
raises  the  costs  of  production  to,  the  weaker  or  "marginal " 
producer,  whopasses  on  his  increased  cost  to  the  consumer. 
Only  when  the  union  approaches  total  control  in  an  in- 
dustry may  it  infringe  upon  the  profits  of  the  employer. 
In  view  of  this  economic  principle  the  closed  union  shop  is 
in  this  particular  antagonistic  to  the  larger  interests  of 
labor  as  a  whole. 

As  against  the  public  at  large  it  may  be  said  that  any 
policy  which  restricts  the  freedom  of  the  individual 
through  the  exercise  of  an  irresponsible  power,  or  which 
in  any  way  tends  to  supplant  the  self-responsibility  of  the 
individual  in  his  group,  is  contrary  to  the  well-being  of 
society.  This  is  additional  to  the  element  of  monopoly, 
which  I  have  perhaps  sufficiently  discussed.  Society  has 
long  recognized  that  a  power  to  control  the  individual  is  a 
power  to  control  the  State.  Equally,  though  in  a  more 
easily  acquired  measure,  the  power  to  control  the  indi- 
vidual worker  is  a  power  to  control  an  industry.  In  the 
close  interdependence  of  industries  under  our  industrial 
civilization,  a  power  to  control  an  industry  is  a  power  to 
stop  its  operation  and  therefore  a  power  to  interfere  with, 
if  not  actually  to  control,  all  other  industries.  Perhaps 
no  more  remarkable  exhibition  of  this  power  has  ever 
been  given  than  in  the  railroad  troubles  of  1916. 

That  the  public  does  not  widely  recognize  the  signi- 
ficance of  this  power  is  beside  the  point.  Its  inability  to 
grasp  the  fundamentals  involved  arises  from  the  confusion 
and  frequently  the  conflict  between  principles  and  pro- 
grams on  the  one  hand  and  the  fact  of  irresponsible  con- 
trol on  the  other.  The  public  is  aware  of  the  principles 
of  unionism  as  expounded  by  its  national  leaders.  These, 
in  large   measure   rightfully,   it  willingly   accepts.     The 

13 


programs,  or  detailed  regulations,  by  which  the  control  is 
carried  out  are  unknown  to  it.  There  are,  of  course,  in 
total,  the  multitudinous  methods  by  which  the  unions 
exert  pressure  to  attain  their  ends.  Nor  would  it  be 
possible  for  any  one  not  in  actual  contact  with  the  work- 
ings of  these  programs  and  their  effect  on  the  individuals 
concerned  to  gauge  accurately  their  consequences  or  even 
to  grasp  their  details. 

Neither  is  it  possible  for  the  ordinary  person,  unless  he 
is  a  student  of  social  problems,  to  be  familiar  with  the 
character,  extent,  and  limitations  of  the  relations  between 
the  local,  the  district,  and  the  national  control  in  labor 
unionism.  The  quality  of  the  control,  enabling  assump- 
tion of  responsibility  when  this  is  advantageous  and  of 
escape  from  it  when  harmful,  is  a  factor  the  value  of  which 
in  any  particular  issue  is  not  to  be  easily  understood  or 
weighed.  The  closed  union  in  a  shop  is  able  by  the  fact  of 
closure  to  bring  all  these  elements  positively  into  being 
and  in  such  varying  ways  and  degrees  as  may  be  most 
effective. 

The  Orgariization  and  Effects  of  the  Open  Shop 

In  its  essential  theory  we  have  seen  that  the  open  shop 
is  based  on  the  accepted  legal  principle  of  equality  of 
persons  and  their  right  of  free  contractual  relations.  In  a 
sense,  therefore,  it  may  be  said  that  the  open  shop  does 
not  require  an  organization,  or  that  Its  organization  is 
provided  for  It  by  law  and  custom.  That  is  to  say,  unless 
some  modifying  action  be  taken  by  the  employer,  his  shop 
is,  ipso  facto,  an  open  shop. 

From  a  working  standpoint,  however,  this  is  not  true. 
The  moment  that  unionization  appears  among  his  em- 
ployees, the  employer  can  no  longer  maintain  an  attitude 
of  indifference  to  it.  The  essence  of  labor  unionism,  as 
we  have  seen,  is  the  exercise  of  pressure  upon  the  em- 
ployer by  irresponsible  power.  Elsewhere  I  have  dis- 
cussed the  consequences  of  this  interposed  or  extra-legal 
power.  If  this  power  becomes  superior  to  himself,  the 
employer  must  obey  its  mandate.  To  the  extent  to  which 
it  attains  authority,  It  must  curtail  his  freedom  of  action. 
Presumptively  its  strength  will  always  tend  to  increase. 

The  employer  is  therefore  confronted  with  one  of  two 
alternatives.     Either  he  must  declare  his  shop  non-union, 

14 


thereby  himself  adopting  a  policy  of  exclusion  of  the  same 
character  as  that  to  which  he  objects;  or  he  must  oppose 
the  union  power  in  his  shop  by  a  force  of  the  same  nature. 
Preferably  he  adopts  the  latter  course  and  brings  such  a 
force  into  being  through  the  medium  of  an  employers* 
association. 

Employers'  associations  are  variously  organized.  They 
differ  from  labor  unions  in  that  they  are  practically  all 
local  bodies.  They  differ  further  in  that  they  are  officered 
by  their  own  working  members  whose  actions  bind  them- 
selves as  well  as  their  associates,  and  they  differ  still 
further,  and  importantly,  in  that  their  individual  members 
are  financially  responsible.  In  all  such  associations  there 
naturally  reside  the  possibilities  of  good  and  evil.  The 
reactionary  as  well  as  the  orderly  and  constructively  pro- 
gressive spirit  is  always  present.  But  the  quality  of 
responsibility,  the  fact  of  greater  consequence  in  the 
community,  and  usually  of  a  higher  regard  for  action 
within  legal  limits,  tend  to  restrain  the  reactionary 
element  and  to  prevent  the  pursuit  of  illegal  methods. 

We  conclude,  therefore,  that  where  an  overwhelming 
preponderance  of  power  exists  on  the  part  of  the  workers, 
unionism  will  always  take  the  form  of  the  closed  shop. 
Per  contra,  where  the  like  conditions  prevail  on  the  side 
of  the  employer,  there  will  be  a  probability  of  only  the 
non-union  shop,  particularly  if  the  question  be  raised. 
Where,  however,  there  is  a  fairly  balanced  power,  there 
will  come  into  existence  the  open  shop  in  its  more  or  less 
complete  expression.  This  is  what  I  mean  in  saying  that 
the  open  shop  is  itself  a  recognition  of  the  union  and 
appears  only  in  the  presence  of  unionization. 

I  have  previously  said  that  the  open  shop  is  in  accord 
with  our  traditional  political  and  economic  theory. 
Presumably,  this  should  be  its  complete  justification.  To 
question,  then,  the  social  validity  of  the  open  shop  is  to 
question  the  validity  of  these  theories.  If  we  are  to  do 
this,  we  are  bound  first  to  examine  their  structure,  to 
ascertain  whether  or  not  there  is  coincidence  between  the 
traditional  theory  and  the  modern  fact.  We  are,  as  well, 
bound  to  make  such  an  inquiry  with  a  great  deal  of  care. 

The  mark  of  a  free  man  is  the  right  of  contract.  But 
such  freedom  must  rest  upon  the  presumption  of  a  relative 
equality  in  the  effects  of  the  contract  upon  the  parties  to 
it.    Society  has  long  recognized  the  element  of  duress  and 

15 


its  bearing  upon  the  validity  of  contracts.  Has,  then,  the 
modern  development  of  society  inevitably  Introduced 
duress  into  the  Industrial  relations  of  the  employer  and 
the  worker  under  the  open  shop?  The  answer  involves  an 
Inquiry  Into  the  character  or  quality  of  the  modern  em- 
ployer as  related  to  the  worker.  Such  an  employer  may 
be  an  individual,  firm,  or  corporation.  In  their  economic 
aspect  all  are  persons  of  equal  legal  standing.  Yet  are 
they.  In  point  of  fact,  of  equal  contractual  standing.^  We 
must  examine  this  at  some  length. 

If  one  natural  person  desires  the  service  of  another, 
there  Is,  In  the  absence  of  monopoly  or  duress,  a  pre- 
sumptive equality  between  them.  The  service  sought, 
being  personal.  Is  one  which  either  party  might  perform. 
If,  then,  a  crossroads  blacksmith,  finding  himself  with 
more  work  than  he  can  do,  seeks  an  assistant,  the  minds 
of  the  two  men  can  play  freely  as  to  the  terms  and  condi- 
tions of  the  service.  The  blacksmith  Is  aware,  let  us 
say,  that  he  can  double  his  profits  by  doubling  his  output 
and  that  the  possibility  of  his  doing  this  resides  in  the 
proposed  assistance.  The  assistant  Is  equally  aware  of 
this  fact  and  both  are  aware  that  the  newcomer  might  set 
up  his  own  forge.  There  Is  a  relative  equality,  or  perhaps 
more  correctly,  a  quality  of  equal  relativity,  existing  be- 
tween the  two  men  bargaining  for  terms.  Free  competi- 
tion exists  and,  we  may  aver.  Is  justified. 

But  let  us  suppose  that  the  blacksmith's  shop  In  time 
outgrows  his  resources  and  he  takes  in  a  partner,  and  that 
presently  they  find  It  necessary  to  Incorporate  their 
business.  Let  us  presume  that  the  corporation  prospers 
and  comes  to  employ  twenty  thousand  men  and  operates 
as  an  open  shop.  Is  the  worker  applying  for  or  accepting 
employment  by  that  corporation  In  the  same  relative 
position  as  the  blacksmith's  assistant.^  Legally,  no  doubt, 
yes;  for  the  corporation,  before  the  law,  is  neither  more 
nor  less  an  economic  individual  than  the  blacksmith  whom 
It  succeeded.  But  Is  the  relativity  of  the  worker  to  the 
employer  now  the  same.^  Obviously  it  Is  not,  for  whereas 
the  worker  in  his  own  person  previously  represented  the 
entire  additional  output,  under  the  changed  conditions  he 
represents,  so  to  say,  but  one  twenty-thousandth  of  it. 
His  economic  relativity  has  long  been  negligible.  The 
corporation,  when  It  has  passed  beyond  the  state  of  a 
personal  business,   must  establish  rules  of  employment. 

16 


The  freedom  of  the  applicant  is  confined  wholly  to 
accepting  or  rejecting  that  which  the  corporation  offers. 
To  say  that  this  constitutes  freedom  of  contract  may  be 
stating  a  legal  truth,  but  one  which,  in  point  of  fact,  must 
be  a  practical  fiction.  Nor  is  it  possible  to  conceive  that 
the  conditions  of  employment  under  the  modern  corpora- 
tion could  possibly  provide  the  freedom  of  traditional 
conception.  It  would  be  as  though  a  government  bar- 
gained with  every  private  soldier  over  the  terms  of  his 
enlistment.  The  industrial  development  of  society  has  of 
itself  established  a  new  condition  in  industrial  relations 
between  the  employer  and  the  worker.  It  has  established 
what  we  may  term  a  condition  of  industrial  duress,  —  a 
condition  in  which  the  offered  terms  are  the  only  terms  tO' 
the  individual  worker. 

By  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century,  under  the 
influence  of  laissez-faire  and  unlimited  competition,  this 
economic  disparity,  or  compelling  weight,  had  so  pressed 
upon  the  worker  as  to  call  for  remedial  legislation.  But 
no  such  legislation  can  anticipate;  it  must  of  necessity 
always  lag  behind  the  actual  situation.  It  is  true  that 
under  the  open  shop  the  worker  is  free  to  reject  the  terms 
offered  or  to  quit  if  for  any  reason  displeased  with  the 
terms  of  his  employment.  But  does  that  constitute  a 
freedom  in  contract  in  conformity  with  the  theory  of  the 
open  shop?  We  have  seen  that  the  effect  on  the  business 
of  the  employer  is  the  fraction  or  quantity  of  his  business 
which  the  production  of  the  worker  represents.  This 
resolves  itself  into  a  problem  of  substitution,  which  of  late 
has  been  formulated  as  the  cost  of  labor  turnover.  The 
effect  on  the  worker,  per  contra,  is  his  total  subsistence 
during  the  period  of  substitution.  If  a  refusal  of  terms  by 
the  worker  suspended  the  employer's  Income  to  the  same 
relative  extent  as  a  refusal  to  comply  with  the  employer's 
terms  suspends  the  worker's  Income,  there  would  exist  in 
fact  that  equality  in  contractual  relations  contemplated 
in  the  theory.  The  absence  of  that  equality  in  fact 
invalidates  the  practice  of  the  theory.  The  open  shop 
under  modern  industrial  conditions  denies  and  must  deny 
the  worker,  acting  singly,  a  freedom  to  which  his  citizen- 
ship theoretically  entitles  him.  It  may  be  said  that  this 
fact  Is  set  off  in  practice  by  the  widened  opportunities  for 
modern  employment,  but  while  this  holds  a  certain  truth 
we  shall  see  that  it  is  not  a  complete  answer. 

17 


% 


Yet,  in  spite  of  this  actual  state  of  facts  the  advocates 
of  the  open  shop  are  able  to  point  to  a  certain  qualitative 
difference  which  undoubtedly  exists  between  it  and  the 
closed  union  shop.  It  is  current  knowledge  that,  other 
things  being  equal,  the  open  shop  can  and  frequently 
does  pay  a  higher  wage  rate  than  competing  closed  shops. 
The  alleged  reasons  for  this  fact  are  many,  but  we  may 
content  ourselves  with  examining  those  which  appear  to 
be  basic. 

Relatively  speaking,  the  industrial  establishments 
operated  in  the  spirit  of  the  open  shop  are  few.  The  open 
shop  employer  must  waive  the  exercise  of  much  of  the 
potential  power  which  of  necessity  resides  in  him  before 
the  spirit  of  the  open  shop  can  be  made  practically 
effective.  But  when  it  has  been  brought  into  play,  it 
holds  a  strong  appeal  for  the  type  of  workman  who  is 
naturally  restive  under  the  very  real  and  imminent  yoke 
of  the  union  regulations.  Especially  it  appeals  to  the  fast 
worker  who  is  apt  to  be  of  independent  or  individualistic 
temper.  These  characters  naturally  drift  to  the  open 
shop. 

This,  however,  would  not  alone  be  the  whole  truth. 
The  real  open  shop  is  commonly  of  moderate  size.  In 
present  day  terms,  it  is  apt  to  be  a  small  organization.  It 
will  be  one  in  which  the  managers  are  themselves  heavily 
interested  stockholders.  As  a  consequence,  the  personal 
factor  has  still  some  opportunity.  Some  one  near  the  top 
will  be  in  close  touch  with  the  details  of  the  costs  of  pro- 
duction. In  one  way  and  another  wages  and  other  con- 
siderations can  be  adjusted  to  individual  output  and  shop 
conditions  adapted  to  the  personalities  of  workers,  and 
with  these  a  degree  of  personal  acquaintance  and  contact 
must  exist  between  management  and  man.  The  manage- 
ment of  small  or  moderate  size  is  thus  able  to  avoid  the 
dead  uniformity  that  inevitably  accompanies  the  im- 
personal relations  of  large  scale  operation. 

The  Social  and  Economic  Values  of  the  Closed  and   the 
Open  Shop 

Our  examination  thus  far  has  tended  to  expose  the 
■evils  of  the  closed  shop  in  a  political  democracy.  It 
endeavors  to  enforce  monopoly;  it  tends  to  develop  a 
caste  spirit  or  a  class  consciousness;  it  would  deprive  the 
individual  of  full  personal  responsibility  for  his  own  acts; 

18 


it  makes  him  lean  upon  the  system  rather  than  upon  his 
own  excellence,  for  his  remuneration  and  advance;  It 
makes  him  callous  to  the  legitimate  demands  of  the 
economic  order  under  which  he  lives.  In  short,  It  would' 
seem  demonstrably  opposed  to  the  highest  public  welfare. 
It  embodies  the  germs  of  chaos  If  not  of  anarchy. 

This  is  beyond  doubt  a  severe  indictment,  but  as  we 
have  seen,  the  open  shop.  In  Its  extreme  form,  presents 
what  may  only  at  best  be  termed  a  benevolent  autocracy. 
Let  us  consider  first  Its  Influence  on  the  employee.  The 
insistence  on  the  right  of  individual  relations  between 
employer  and  employee  must  of  necessity  place  the 
worker  In  an  Impotent  position.  The  conception  of 
justice  obtaining  between  them  must  be  that  of  the 
employer.  The  quality  of  fact  In  this  circumstance  and 
its  import  is  not  lessened  by  any  exercise  of  reasonableness 
or  high-mindedness  upon  the  part  of  the  officials  of  the 
employing  corporation.  A  decision  in  any  matter  becomes 
effective  only  as  the  worker  accepts  it.  Its  rejection  by 
him  means  to  him  a  change  In  employment  and  hence  In 
his  working  environment  and  associates.  In  the  course 
of  time  these  naturally  become  Important  elements  in  his 
life.  He  may  therefore  submit  to  conditions  very  offensive 
in  many  ways  rather  than  make  a  total  change,  which,  he 
may  feel,  will  in  the  main  occasion  little  difference.  This 
can  only  tend  to  a  feeling  of  Irresponsibility  on  the  worker's 
part,  an  aloofness,  a  lack  of  Interest  In  the  successful  doing 
of  the  work  by  which  he  makes  his  livelihood.  The  dis- 
satisfaction may  be  none  the  less  real  because  It  can  find 
no  effective  outlet  or  expression.  He  Is  apt  to  regard  with 
a  good  deal  of  Indifference,  if  not  of  suspicion,  any  under- 
takings In  the  nature  of  welfare  work  Instituted  by  the 
employer.  His  response  to  them  Is  apt  to  be  negative  — 
they  will  be  regarded  by  him  as  devices  for  avoiding  the 
granting  of  Increased  wages,  or  as  in  some  manner 
primarily  for  the  employer's  own  security  or  profit.  This 
feeling,  too,  has  within  Itself  the  germs  of  chaos  and 
anarchy. 

The  effect  on  the  employer  is  not  less  harmful.  It  has 
been  well  said  that  all  men  of  brains  seek  to  dominate 
others  to  the  limit  of  their  powers.  The  qualification  is 
perhaps  superfluous;  the  quality  of  dominance  exists  in 
all  men.  The  unrestrained  employer  cannot  be  expected 
to  do  otherwise  than  apply  this  doctrine.     He  acts  in 

19 


accordance  with  his  human  nature  in  believing  his  own 
way  to  be  the  best.  The  influence  which  the  individual 
employee  can  exert  can  at  most  be  no  more  than  an 
appeal  to  the  employer's  sense  of  fairness.  It  cannot 
carry  the  dignity  of  equality.  Moreover,  the  trend  of 
modern  business  is  in  the  direction  and  nature  of  trustee- 
ship. The  corporation  manager  is  ordinarily  more  a 
trustee  than  a  personal  owner  of  the  business  he  conducts. 
This  quality  of  trusteeship  is  steadily  expanding  and 
carries  with  it  a  corresponding  dependence  upon  assistants. 
This  entire  group,  under  our  present  principle  of  industrial 
organization,  technically  represent  only  the  stockholders. 
Some  declarations  of  open  shop  principles  are  explicit  — 
"Foremen  shall  be  the  agents  of  the  employer."  The 
rewards  of  these  officers  come  from  services  to  the  stock- 
holder rather  than  to  the  worker.  Under  such  form  of 
organization  it  becomes  practically  impossible  to  avoid 
petty  annoyances,  tyrannies,  and  even  injustices,  wholly 
foreign  to  the  desire  of  the  responsible  management  or 
even  of  the  stockholders  themselves,  but  for  which  the 
open  shop  worker  in  his  individual  capacity  can  gain 
neither  hearing  nor  redress.  The  statement  must  be  taken 
qualitatively.  Yet  it  nevertheless  remains  a  fact  that  the 
nature  of  modern  business  organization  involves  delegated 
authority,  —  a  dependence  upon  subordinates  —  and  that 
as  these  subordinations  descend  in  rank,  the  impersonal 
nature  of  their  relations  to  the  worker  decreases  and  the 
human  nature  in  the  relation  increases.  A  good  or  a  bad 
foreman  is  of  the  essence  of  peace  or  trouble. 

The  Value  of  the  Closed  and  the  Open  Shop  in  the  Social 
Development 

Thus  far  I  have  endeavored  to  hold  the  two  phases  of 
employment  separate  and  to  examine  each  in  turn.  I 
come  now  to  that  point  where  the  issues  join  —  where 
that  which  may  be  said  of  either  will  apply  to  the  other 
and  the  distinctions  disappear.  Differences  become 
merely  those  of  expression  and  degree  —  the  opposite 
faces  of  the  same  medal. 

It  may  be  said  of  few  human  movements  that  their 
values  are  all  to  be  entered  on  only  one  side  of  the  social 
account.  The  progress  of  civilization  is  a  progress  in 
cooperation.  Superlatively  is  this  true  of  an  industrial, 
civilization,  whereby  I  mean  a  civilization  in  which  the 

20 


production  of  commodities  is  carried  on  by  minutely  sub- 
divided and  coordinated  effort.  Save  as  men  are  willing 
to  cooperate,  to  submit  their  personal  freedom  of  action 
to  the  necessities  of  the  social  body  and  to  act  as  groups 
rather  than  as  persons,  industrial  cooperation  cannot  be. 

The  closed  and  the  open  shop  are  both  peculiar  to  our 
accepted  views  of  property  and  commerce.  Under  these 
views  all.  the  group  in  authority  represent  the  stock- 
holder, and  commercial  business  is  organized  for  the  pur- 
pose of  making  profit  from  its  conduct.  In  the  accepted 
sense,  whatever  is  done  in  business  is  done  for  profit, 
certain  or  expected.  I  am  not  here  inquiring  into  the 
rightfulness  of  the  system  or  its  practice,  nor  implying 
that  it  should  be  organized  in  any  other  manner,  but  am 
only  endeavoring  to  ascertain  the  reasonable  implications 
from  the  facts  as  they  exist.  It  is  the  world-wide  condition 
of  industrialism  in  which  the  most  charitable,  philan- 
thropic, and  humane  operators  are  caught  up  or  enmeshed 
equally  with  the  most  avaricious  and  heartless.  The 
commercial  enterprise  that  does  not  make  a  profit  for  the 
stockholders  forfeits  its  right  to  public  confidence. 

Now,  the  industrial  enterprise  purchases  materials  in 
the  open  market.  These  are  themselves  the  result  of 
human  effort  in  many  ways,  one  of  which  is  what  we 
particularize  as  labor.  Equally,  it  purchases  such  labor 
for  the  further  fabrication  of  the  materials  purchased. 
Both  the  labor  and  the  materials  must  be  obtained  at 
such  prices  that  the  product  can  be  sold  in  competition  on 
the  open  market.  The  inevitable  result  is  in  effect  to 
constitute  labor  a  commodity  and,  as  we  have  seen,  for  the 
laborer,  acting  alone,  to  sell  his  commodity  under  duress. 
The  highest  type  of  management  can  do  no  more  than 
mitigate  the  workings  of  the  system.  If  we  would  frame 
an  Indictment,  it  must  be  against  industrialism  Itself, 
having  rightly  a  very  great  care  not  recklessly  to  advocate 
changes  of  a  character  that  would  be  only  to  jump  from 
the  frying  pan  Into  the  fire.  But  we  are  not  here  concerned 
with  such  an  inquiry.  The  total  result,  however,  is  to 
foster,  in  the  group  which  represents  property,  a  con- 
sciousness of  class  and  of  class  superiority  and  even  of  class 
antagonism,  perhaps  as  disruptive  of  social  solidarity  as 
its  corresponding  and  cruder  form,  unionism. 

Unionism,  however,  of  which  the  closed  union  shop  is 
the  extreme  expression,  gradually  taught  the  workers  the 

21 


needed  discipline  for  cooperation.  Had  the  movement 
failed  to  abridge  the  prevailing  laissez-faire,  it  would 
have  served  no  purpose.  Anything  which  did  abridge  that 
doctrine  became,  ipso  facto,  anathema,  and  encountered 
opposition.  This  opposition,  or  resistance,  was  practically 
individual  on  the  part  of  the  employing  interests  until  the 
end  of  the  nineteenth  century.  But  by  that  time,  when- 
ever the  issues  were  joined,  the  preponderance  of  power 
had  passed  to  the  workers.  The  employers,  as  individuals, 
by  about  the  year  1900  were  no  longer  able  successfully 
to  cope  with  the  strengthening  of  affiliated  workers.  As 
a  consequence  employers'  associations  came  into  being 
and  developed  rapidly.  These  performed  precisely  the 
same  disciplinary  functions  for  the  employing  interests 
that  the  unions  were  providing  for  the  workers.  The 
individualist  employer  met  his  competitor  and  found 
that  he  learned  as  much  as  he  taught  —  received  as  much 
as  he  gave  away.  In  a  manner  of  speaking,  the  employers 
also  became  unionized. 

In  each  case  the  pressure  from  without  produced  a 
solidarity  within.  The  unification  of  the  opposing  in- 
terests also  increased  the  magnitude  of  the  contest  which 
again,  as  it  were,  led  to  a  search  for  improved  "weapons." 
Prominent  among  these  was  public  opinion.  This  could 
be  influenced  favorably  only  by  a  presentation  of  facts 
and  principles. 

I  need  not,  perhaps,  enlarge  on  the  details.  Analogous 
movements  are  familiar  to  all  students  of  political  phi- 
losophy. The  principle  which  underlies  them  presents 
three  phases,  aspects,  or  periods,  viz.,  (1)  indifference,  (2) 
conflict,  (3)  unity. 

In  the  appearance  of  the  principle  in  industrial  labor 
relations  the  first  stage  may  fairly  be  said  to  have  ob- 
tained in  the  early  period  ending  with  the  middle  of  the 
nineteenth  century.  In  this  early  period  neither  employer 
nor  employee  was  conscious  of  any  rights  residing  in  the 
other.  It  was  considered  that  the  good  of  all  was  best 
conserved  through  allowing  every  one  to  pursue  his  own 
economic  ends,  unaided  and  unfettered.  Unions  were 
sporadic  and  weak  and  employers'  associations  had  not 
been  thought  of. 

But  with  unionism  came  a  consciousness  and  definition 
of  differences  which  produced  conflict,  in  which  the 
slowly  affiliating  unions  strove  for  advantage  over  the  tra- 

22 


ditionally  individualistic  employers.  This  form  of  the 
conflict  reached  its  height  with  the  end  of  the  nineteenth 
century.  The  appearance  of  employers'  associations  and 
a  definition  of  the  open  shop  produced  a  pause  or  equali- 
zation in  which  the  conflict  only  maintained  itself.  This 
continued  through  the  first  decade  of  the  present  century, 
but  is  perhaps  now  entering  upon  its  closing  phases.  The 
evidences  of  this  are  twofold,  proceeding  respectively 
from  the  two  sides  to  the  conflict. 

On  the  side  of  labor  there  has  been  an  apparently 
arrested  or  at  least  restricted  development  of  that  aspect 
of  unionism  which  insists  upon  the  closed  shop.  Coin- 
cidently  a  certain  note  of  conservatism  appears  in  the 
utterances  and  attitude  of  the  national  leaders.  There 
has  also  been  a  growth  of  socialism,  so  called,  within  the 
ranks  of  traditional  unionism,  and  there  has  been  as  well 
a  marked  increase  in  the  importance  of  labor  movements 
outside  of  the  established  order,  with  especially  a  radical 
character  in  the  newer  activities. 

The  significance  of  these  various  phenomena  may  not 
be  overlooked.  They  indicate  in  the  first  place  a  tacit,  or 
more  probably  an  unconscious,  acknowledgment  of  the 
inadequacy  of  the  earlier  methods.  Naturally  this  shows 
long  before  the  methods  themselves  actually  cease.  Of 
even  greater  interest  Is  the  seeming  fact  that  both  the 
growing  conservatism  and  the  newer  radicalism  proceed 
from  the  same  cause,  the  conservatism  being  the  union 
recognition  of  an  increasing  public  sense  of  the  essential 
dignity  of  human  labor,  while  the  radicalism  expresses  its 
feeling  of  Inherent  power.  Both,  then,  are  evidences  of 
solidarity,  which  must  presently  recognize  that  labor's 
own  highest  good  is  inextricably  bound  up  with  the  good 
of  society.  The  socialistic  groups  within  the  older  orders 
are,  so  to  say,  the  halfway  houses  between  the  extremes, 
while  the  fact  that  these  groups  are  socialistic  Is  evidence 
that  the  established  system  of  Industrial  control  is  not 
satisfying  to  the  mass  of  now  self-conscious  workers. 
Their  socialism.  In  short,  is  a  protest  rather  than  a  pro- 
gram. All  these  circumstances  point  to  a  sharp  change  in 
the  methods  which  American  labor  has  pursued  for  the 
last  forty  years. 

On  the  side  of  capital,  there  are  the  growths  evolving 
out  of  the  "welfare"  movement,  itself  at  first  undoubt- 
edly in  large  measure  a  tactical  move,  but  probably  also  a. 

23 


pioneer  of  the  coming  phase.  The  many  attempts  now- 
being  made,  in  the  main  tentatively  and  experimentally, 
but  all  looking  to  closer  cooperation  between  employers 
and  workers,  in  practically  all  cases  of  significance,  involve 
the  placing  of  responsibility  upon  the  group  concerned. 

The  efforts  to  establish  labor  councils  and  other  rap- 
prochements between  the  employers  on  the  one  hand  as  a 
group  of  owners  and  the  employees  on  the  other  as  a  group 
of  workers,  each  wholly  autonomous,  is  a  return  to  the 
earlier  alignment,  but  a  return  in  which  autonomous 
groups  take  the  place  of  free  individuals.  In  the  nature  of 
things  such  groups  cannot  be  so  individualistic  as  persons. 
As  the  interests  are  widened  the  restrictions  must  become 
less  sharp.  Thus  there  is  a  growth  of  mutual  respect  and 
harmony. 

In  parentheses  it  may  be  observed  that  we  must  be 
exceedingly  careful  in  all  this  rightly  to  evaluate  collateral 
conditions,  such  as  the  revolutionary  character  of  the 
social  and  economic  changes  brought  about  by  the  de- 
velopment of  machinery  and  machine  processes.  The 
difficulties  in  arriving  at  these  valuations  lie  primarily  In 
determining  wherein  they  are  causes  of  change  and 
wherein  merely  accelerations  or  retardants.  In  the  main 
most  of  them  are  mere  Incidents  in  the  struggle,  as,  for 
example,  that  the  growth  of  the  automatic  tool  has  tended 
to  shift  the  labor  side  of  the  conflict  from  the  form  of  the 
A.  F.  of  L.^  to  the  form  of  the  I.  W.  W.^  That  is  to  say,  the 
A.  F.  of  L.  embodies  the  doctrine  of  laissez-faire,  embodied 
in  the  group.  In  other  words,  that  type  of  unionism 
accepts  the  tenets  of  capitalism  and  wishes  no  Interference 
with  its  struggle  to  wrest  Its  own  advantage  from  capital 
and  to  wrest  Its  advantage  in  its  own  way.  The  right  to 
strike,  the  non-interference  of  Government,  the  objection 
to  incorporation,  the  monopoly  of  the  closed  shop,  the 
organization  by  trades,  the  boycott,  the  sympathetic 
strike,  and  the  advisory  character  of  the  higher  control, 
all  partake  of  the  philosophical  anarchy  of  laissez-faire. 
On  the  other  hand,  economic  socialism  appeared  as  a 
reaction  against  capitalism  at  a  time  when  the  worker  was 
not  organized  sufficiently  to  prevail  by  his  own  strength. 
This  latter  doctrine  has  continued  and  grown  In  Its  primary 
purpose.  It  is  also  slowly  permeating  the  ranks  of  tra- 
,dItIonal     unionism     while     itself    undergoing     extensive 


^American  Federation  of  Labor. 
'^  Industrial  Workers  of  the  World. 


24 


modification.  So  we  find  a  socialistic  minority  in  the 
ranks  of  the  A.  F.  of  L.  and  a  radical  socialistic  group 
organized  separately  as  the  I.  W.  W.  But  it  would  be  a 
serious  mistake  to  confuse  the  issues  by  assuming  that 
socialism  Is  an  essential  element  of  the  labor  movement, 
and  this  even  despite  the  fact  that  It  was  born  out  of  the 
misery  of  the  workers  and  is  prominent  in  their  councils. 
The  real  labor  Issues  are  not  economic  socialism.  In  a 
fundamental  sense  they  are  political.  The  older  unionism 
is  dimly  conscious  of  this,  while  the  I.  W.  W.  is  as  yet  only 
an  evidence  of  mere  solidarity  —  a  protest,  but  not  suffi- 
ciently informed  to  be  In  any  way  constructive. 

To  return  from  our  parentheses,  I  think  we  may  there- 
fore properly  look  upon  the  granting  of  consultative  and 
administrative  powers  to  workers  through  the  large 
measure  of  shop  control  that  Is  being  growlngly  placed 
upon  them,  as  the  acquisition  and  use  of  a  new  and  very 
effective  weapon  by  the  employer,  which  will  tend  to 
equalize  the  contest  and  will  call  upon  labor  unionism  to 
devise  some  exclusive  weapon  of  Its  own  If  it  would 
counteract  the  advantage  accruing  to  capital  through  the 
use  of  this  new  strategy.  Meantime,  labor  itself  also 
gains,  and  industry  becomes  more  "human." 

If  unionism  cannot  devise  some  weapon  in  the  form  of 
measures  tending  to  benefit  itself  exclusively,  then  the 
vigor  of  the  contest  will  diminish  and  the  issues  for  which 
It  has  contended  will  surrender  their  prominence.  But  in 
any  event  we  may  hardly  expect  that  unionism  will  be 
able  to  arrest  quickly  the  momentum  of  the  autonomous 
movement.  The  worker  has  become  conscious  of  his 
Importance  in  society,  and  of  this  cognition  has  been  born 
a  desire  for  a  wider  and  more  Immediately  personal  de- 
termination of  his  life.  The  multiplying  efforts  of  em- 
ployers to  placate  him  serve  the  twofold  end  of  increasing 
the  worker's  desire  for  extension  in  this  participation,  and 
of  moulding  both  himself  and  the  employer  to  a  broader 
conception  of  the  true  purposes  of  industry.  The  logical 
outcome  of  sharing  control  is  a  sharing  of  reward,  and  the 
plans  for  accomplishing  this  purpose  that  have  sprung  into 
being  within  a  year  are  more  than  can  be  quickly  enum- 
erated. All  these  measures  work  for  autonomy.  All  tend 
to  make  the  worker  push  aside  the  extra-legal  control  of 
unionism.  All  equally  tend  to  make  the  employer  deal 
with  his  group  rather  than  with  his  Individual  workers^ 
And  all  together  act  to  solidify  Industrial  enterprises  Into 

25 


self-determinative  units  embracing  owners,  officials,  and 
handworkers.  This  would  be  an  extension  of  the  prin- 
ciples of  democracy  to  industry. 

That  this  condition  is  actually  in  process  at  the  present 
time  seems  to  me  to  be  indicated  both  in  this  country  and 
in  the  British  Empire.  Our  particular  national  genius 
and  form  of  political  institutions  may  conceivably  give  a 
different  aspect  to  our  development,  but,  on  the  whole, 
and  in  the  end,  the  unity  at  which  we  shall  arrive  is  apt  to 
embody  the  same  essential  principles. 

Summary 

Summing  up,  then,  we  may  say  that  the  closed  union 
shop  and  the  open  shop  are  the  action  and  reaction  of  a 
struggle  for  a  greater  unity  of  life  under  an  industrial  form 
of  civilization.  Both,  therefore,  are  temporary  and 
opposite  phases  of  the  same  thing  and  must  be  judged  as 
steps  in  the  process  of  welding  society  into  a  more  homo- 
geneous relationship  of  its  individuals.  Neither  can, 
therefore,  be  accepted  as  a  factor  of  final  utility  or  validity. 
It  would  appear  that  the  greater  unity  which  the  result 
promises  will  be  a  distinct  social  gain,  and  it  would  seem 
to  be  a  reasonable  inference  that  the  broadening  of  the 
basis  of  responsibility  for  efficiencies  in  production  should 
have  a  tendency  to  increase  the  actual  efficiency.  This 
may  be  supposed  on  the  theory  that  the  increase  of 
responsibility  will  carry  with  it  an  increasing  share  in  the 
gains  and  losses  of  enterprise  and  the  bringing  in,  there- 
fore, of  a  direct  personal  incentive  to  the  workers  which  is 
lacking  under  the  present  traditional  relations  of  capital 
and  labor.  We  may  possibly  look  forward  as  a  result 
of  the  conflict  to  the  joining  in  fact,  if  not  in  name,  of  these 
two  terms.    Thus  we  should  arrive  at  unity. 

Finally,  we  may  venture  to  say,  as  a  result  of  our 
analysis,  that  the  closed  union  shop  and  the  open  shop 
concretely  represent  opposite  sides  of  a  disunity  peculiar 
to  an  industrial  organization  of  an  individualistic  society. 
If  either  side  to  this  struggle  should  gain  and  retain 
mastery,  our  civilization  could  not  ripen  to  its  fruition  and 
would  perish  in  the  conflict,  leaving  history  uninformed 
as  to  the  possible  values  residing  in  industrialism.  We 
may  hope,  therefore,  that  neither  side  may  prevail,  that 
no  class  or  group  may  attain  an  impregnable  preponder- 
ance, but  that  the  conflict  may  continue  to  develop  a 

26 


constant  approach  to  unity.  The  relative  values  under 
this  point  of  view  become  equal  and  the  varying  phases 
are  to  be  viewed  as  steps  in  a  world  process  which  neither 
side  can  express  as  a  conclusion.  ■-'^ 

Certain  it  is  that  industrialism  as  we  have  seen  it  slowly 
evolving  since  the  downfall  of  feudalism,  first  in  the 
domestic  and  now  in  the  factory  system,  has  at  no  time 
presented  to  us  the  picture  of  a  perfect  civilization.  Yet, 
equally  true  it  is  that  the  conditions  of  life  have  been 
steadily  ameliorating.  Equally  true  it  is  that  the  possi- 
bilities of  a  larger,  wider  life  are  steadily  expanding.  We 
may  not  deny  this  even  though  these  greater  possibilities 
of  good  carry  with  them,  as  they  always  have,  the  poten- 
tialities of  greater  evil.  Man  may  compass  no  good  that 
is  not  pregnant  with  curse.  The  war  gave  a  terrific 
impetus  to  the  movement  that  was  slowly  gathering  head- 
way before  its  advent.  It  crystallized  suddenly,  into  a 
vital  solidarity,  that  entire  element  of  the  population 
which  we  have  heretofore  loosely  called  labor.  At  once, 
that  labor  became  instinct  with  the  dynamic  power  of  a 
consciousness  of  its  own  dignity  and  worth.  Vague  and 
as  yet  inarticulate  as  to  means,  it  has  none  the  less  set  its 
face  to  the  vision  of  an  end.  That  end  is  a  larger  place 
in  life,  a  definite  voice  in  the  shaping  of  its  own  destiny  — 
in  short,  a  demand  for  self-expression,  for  wider  avenues 
of  knowledge,  for  a  greater  equality  of  opportunity.  The 
differentiations  of  its  expressions  heretofore  have  been 
sunk  in  this  larger  unity. 

It  is  far  too  early  rightly  to  appraise  the  intellectual 
forces  released  by  the  war.  It  is  no  proper  cause  for  sur- 
prise that  these  loosed  forces  should  be  largely  unreason- 
ing, unreasonable  —  aye,  even  brutal  in  their  expression. 
That  they  will  overwhelm  or  even  seriously  cripple  our 
Anglo-Saxon  social  discipline  is  not  to  be  believed.  Even 
now  we  are  rallying  from  the  shock  of  their  outrush.  But 
a  vision  of  the  course  they  are  to  take  when  they  steady 
down  for  their  great  forward  march  toward  the  further 
goal  of  a  better  industrialism  is  stirring  the  hearts  and 
occupying  the  thoughts  of  men  in  every  walk  of  life.  As 
never  before,  men  are  seeking  and  men  are  willing  to 
concede  the  widening  and  the  wider  opening  of  the  doors 
of  opportunity^'VWe  may  well  believe  that  in  the  prepara- 
tion for  this  newer  life  the  closed  union  shop  and  the  open 
shop  have,  all  unconsciously,  played  their  valuable  and 
significant  parts. 

27 


Publications 

of  the 

National  Industrial  Conference  Board 

RESEARCH  REPORTS 

Research  Report  No.  1.  Workmen's  Compensation  Acts  in  the  United  States  —  The 
Legal  Phase.    60  pages.    April,  1917.    Revised,  August,  1919.    $1.00. 

Research  Report  No.  2.  Analysis  of  British  Wartime  Reports  on  Hours  of  Work 
AS  Related  to  Output  and  Fatigue.    58  pages.    November,  1917.    Sl.OO. 

Research  Report  No.  S.      Strikes  in  American  Industry  in  Wartime.     20  pages.    March, 

1918.  50  cents. 

Research  Report  No.  4-      Hours  of  Work  as  Related  to  Output  and  Health  of  Workers 

—  Cotton  Manufacturing.    64  pages.    March,  1918.    $1.00. 

Research  Report  No.  6.      The  Canadian  Industrial  Disputes  Investigation  Act.     28 

pages.    April,  1918.    50  cents. 
Research  Report  No.  6.      Sickness    Insurance    or    Sickness    Prevention?    24    pages. 

May,  1918.    50  cents. 
Research  Report  No.  7.      Hours  of  Work  as  Related  to  Output  and  Health  of  Workers 

—  Boot  and  Shoe  Industry.    76  pages.    June,  1918.    $1.00. 

Research  Report  No.  8.  Wartime  Employment  of  Women  in  the  Metal  Trades.  80 
pages.    July,  1918.    $1.00. 

Research  Report  No.  9.  Wartime  Changes  in  the  Cost  of  Living  —  July,  1914,  to 
June,  1918.    82  pages.    August,  1918.    $1.00. 

Research  Report  No.  10.  Arbitration  and  Wage-Fixing  in  Australia.  52  pages.  Octo- 
ber, 1918.    $1.00. 

Research  Report  No.  11.  The  Eight-Hour  Day  Defined.  12  pages.  December,  1918. 
50  cents. 

Research  Report  No.  12.    Hours  of  Work  as  Related  to  Output  and  Health  of  Workers 

—  Wool  Manufacturing.    69  pages.    December,  1918.    $1.00. 

Research  Report  No.  13.    Rest  Periods  for  Industrial  Workers.     55  pages.    January, 

1919.  $1.00. 

Research  Report  No.  14.    Wartime  Changes  in  the  Cost  of  Living  —  July,   1914,  to 

November,  1918.    33  pages.    February,  1919.    75  cents. 
Research  Report  No.  15.    Problems  of  Industrial  Readjustment  in  the  United  States. 

58  pages.    February,  1919.    $1.00. 
Research  Report  No.  16.    Hours  of  Work  as  Related  to  Output  and  Health  of  Workers 

—  Silk  Manufacturing.    54  pages.    March,  1919.    $1.00. 

Research  Report  No.  17.    Wartime  Changes  in  the  Cost  of  Living  —  July,  1914,  to 

March,  1919.    31  pages.    May,  1919.    75  cents. 
Research  Report  No.  18.    Hours  of  Work  as  Related  to  OtrrPUT  and  Health  of  Workers 

—  Metal  Manufacturing  Industries.    62  pages.    July,  1919.    $1.00. 

Research  Report  No.  19.    Changes  in  the  Cost  of  Living  —  July,  1914,  to  July,  1919, 

31  pages.    September,  1919.    75  cents. 
Research  Report  No.  20.    Wartime  Changes    in  Wages  —  (September,  1914, —  March, 

1919).    128  pages.    September,  1919.    $1.50. 
Research  Report  No.  21.    Works  Councils  in  the  United  States.    135  pages.    October, 

1919.    $1.50. 
Research  Report  No.  22.    The   Cost   of   Living   Among   Wage-Earners  —  Fall  River, 

Massachusetts,  October,  1919.     18  pages.     November,  1919.    50  cents. 
Research  Report  No.  23.    Conciliation  and  Arbitration  in  Nev/  Zealand.    46  pages. 

December,  1919.    $1.00. 
Research   Report  No.  24-    The  Cost  of  Living  Among  Wage-Earners  —  Lawrence, 

Massachusetts,  November,  1919.    21  pages.    December,  1919.    50  cents. 
Research  Report  No.  25.    Changes  in  the  Cost  of  Living,  July,  1914,  to  November, 

1919.     24  pages.     December,  1919.     75  cents. 
Research  Report  No.  26.    A  Works  Council  Manual.    32  pages.    February,  1920.    $1.00 
Research  Report  No.  27.    The  Hours  of  Work  Problem  in  Five  Major  Industries.    91 

pages.    March,  1920.    $1.00. 
Research  Report  No.  28.     Changes  in  Cost  of  Living — ^July,  1914,  to  March,  1920. 

24  pages.     May,  1920.     75  cents. 
Research  Report  No.  29.     Practical  Experience  with  Profit  Sharing  in  Industrial 

Establishments.     86  pages.     June,  1920.     $1.00. 


Publications — continued 


SPECIAL  REPORTS 

Special  Report  No.  1.      A  Case  of  Federal  Propaganda  in  our  Public  Schools.    13  pages, 
February,  1919.    50  cents. 

Special  Report  No.  2.      WarRevenue  Act  of  1918  (A  Brief  Analysis),    18  pages.    March, 

1919.  50  cents. 

Special  Report  No.  3.      Interim  Report  of  the  European  Commission  of  the  National 
Industrial  Conference  Board,    34  pages.    July,  1919.    50  cents. 

Special  Report  No.  4-       Is    Compulsory    Health    Insurance    Desirable.^      12    pages, 
October,  1919.    50  cents. 

Special  Report  No.  5.      Vital  Issues  in  the  Industrial  Conference  at  Washington. 
D.  C.    15  pages.  .November,  1919.    50  cents. 

Special  Report  No.  6.      Problems  of  Labor  and  Industry  in  Great  Britain,  France,  and 
Italy.    Report  of  the  European  Commission.    406  pages.    November,  1919,    $2.50. 

Special  Report  No.  7.      The  Cost  of  Living  Among  Wage-Earners,  North    Hudson 
County,  New  Jersey,    20  pages.    March,  1920.    50  cents. 

Special  Report  No.  8.      The  Cost  of  Living  Among  Wage-Earners,  Greenville  and 
Pelzer,  South  Carolina,  and  Charlotte,  North  Carolina,  January  and  February, 

1920.  25  pages.    May,  1920.    50  cents. 

Special  Report  No.  9.       Proceedings   of  the   National   Industrial  Tax  Conference 
at  Chicago,  Illinois,  April  16,  1920.     113  pages.    May,  1920.    $1.00. 

Special  Report  No.  10.     Should  Trade  Unions  and  Employers'  Associations  be  Made. 
Legally  Responsible.^     35  pages.    June,  1920.     75  cents. 

Special  Report  No.  11.    The  Closed  Union  Shop  versus  the  Open  Shop:  Their  Social 
and  Economic  Value  Compared.     27  pages.    July,  1920.     75  cents. 


INDUSTRIAL  NEWS  SURVEY 

Important    industrial  news    in   concise    form, 

A  Digest  of  Industrial  News  and  Comment  as 

Publisiied  in  Reliable  Newspapers,  Magazines, 

Reviews,   Special   Articles,    and   Government 

Documents, 

Weekly,  32,00  per  year 


r 


SEP  1  9  1983 


DATE  DUE 

^^^sai- 

RECDoeC 

vm 

MAY     ?. 

l-PTl  MAY   ( 

1986 

1  K    1QQC 

^^%Mt 

b**  1^86 

OCT    '•> 

iw^HJ" 

1   o    1QQ0 

uuV 

\6  lybo 

CAYLORD 

PRINTED  IN  U    S    * 

3  1970  00212  4284 


